POS0380 EFFECTIVENESS OF REMOTE CARE INTERVENTIONS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW INFORMING THE 2022 EULAR POINTS TO CONSIDER FOR REMOTE CARE IN RHEUMATIC AND MUSCULOSKELETAL DISEASES
Authors: A. Marques, P. Bosch, A. De Thurah, Y. Meissner, L. Falzon, C. Mukhtyar, H. Bijlsma, C. Dejaco, T. Stamm
Journal: Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases (2022)

Background While the number of patients with rheumatic musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) is increasing worldwide, there is no adequate increment in the number of health care professionals, leading to the urgent need for new forms of care to take pressure from health care systems. 1 2 Telehealth comprises a number of different types of interventions with the scope of performing certain steps of care, ranging from diagnostics to follow-up visits, in a remote manner. The use of remote care is heterogenous and guidance is needed to optimize the combination with conventional face-to-face (F2F) visits. Objectives To perform a systematic literature review (SLR) on different outcomes of remote care compared to F2F care, its implementation into clinical practice and to identify drivers and barriers in order to inform a task force formulating the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) Points to Consider for remote care in RMDs. Methods Prospective, retrospective, and qualitative studies testing different types of remote care in patients with RMDs were included. Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched through February 28 th , 2021. Two reviewers independently performed standardized data extraction, synthesis, and risk of bias assessment. Results A total of 2,240 references were identified. Forty-seven studies, consisting of 26 randomized controlled trials, 8 prospective cohort studies, 8 cross sectional studies, and 5 qualitative studies were included. Fifty-one percent of the studies involved patients with inflammatory RMDs, including rheumatoid arthritis, and spondyloarthritis, while 49% were on patients with non-inflammatory conditions, such as osteoarthritis and fibromyalgia. Remote monitoring (n=35) was most frequently studied, with telephone/video calls being the most common mode of delivery (n=30). Thirty-four studies investigated outcomes of remote care in comparison to F2F care. The most frequently assessed outcomes concerned efficacy and user perception of remote care, with 34% and 21% of studies, respectively, reporting superior results for the remote care intervention. Time savings and flexibility were reported as major drivers, while inadequate technical knowledge and concerns in data security were the main barriers to implementing remote care. Implementation of remote care methods into clinical practice was not reported by the included studies. The main limitations were the heterogeneity of outcomes and interventions, and the substantial risk of bias (50% of studies with high risk of bias). Conclusion Studies on remote care reported similar to partially better results compared to F2F care concerning efficacy, and user perception outcomes, with the limitation of heterogeneity and considerable risk of bias. References [1]World Health Organization. WHO Guideline: recommendations on digital interventions for helath system strengthening. 2019 [Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/311941/9789241550505-eng.pdf?ua=1 accessed 10.01.2022. [2]James SL, Abate D, Abate KH, et al. Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 354 diseases and injuries for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet 2018;392(10159):1789-858. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32279-7 Disclosure of Interests Andrea Marques: None declared, Philipp Bosch: None declared, Annette de Thurah Speakers bureau: Pfizer, Eli Lily, Grant/research support from: Novartis, Yvette Meissner Speakers bureau: Pfizer, Louise Falzon: None declared, Chetan Mukhtyar: None declared, Hans Bijlsma Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Arthrogen, BMS, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Sun, UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, Arthrogen, BMS, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Sun, UCB, Grant/research support from: Roche, Sun, Christian Dejaco Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Galapagos, Sanofi, Consultant of: Abbvie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Galapagos, Sanofi, Grant/research support from: Celgene, Pfizer, Tanja Stamm Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda, Consultant of: Abbvie, Sanofi, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Roche